Here was the answer:

This is Jonah with Public Citizen. I work with Aquene who was on earlier. Here are some thoughts in response to this question. No. The Democracy For All Amendment gives government the ability to "regulate and set REASONABLE LIMITS on the RAISING AND SPENDING OF MONEY by candidates and others to influence elections." First of all, this is content neutral - the government could only place limits on spending, not on specific ideas. Secondly, the limitations could only be "reasonable" and related to spending, so could not be used to censor political speech. The decision was that because corporations have the same rights as individuals and because campaign spending (i.e. money) is a form of speech that corporations (and unions) can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections. I do not believe that corporations are people or should have the same constitutional rights as people, nor do I believe that the first amendment was ever intended to enable mega-corporations or billionaires to spend unlimited amounts to influence the outcome of our elections. Our founders fought and died fighting against oligarchs to create a democratic nation. They did not write the first amendment with the intention of it being used to enable our country to become a plutocracy - that was clearly not their intent. To the contrary, the amendment does not censor speech, but instead would empower the vast majority of us whose voices are currently being drowned out to truly have a voice in the political process. It would restore the First Amendment to its true intent. No - see #1 - regulation could only be content neutral and only reasonable restrictions on campaign spending. It is necessary that we have boundaries on all sorts of "freedoms" in our society. For example, a store owner cannot deny someone service because of the color of their skin, nor should a billionaire or mega-corporation be able to buy the outcome of our elections, as they currently are. That destroys our democracy and our faith in our government to represent us. Billionaires and mega-corporations (and institutions that represent them like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) spend a tremendous amount of money to research how people will respond to various messages and use this money to successfully influence the outcome of elections. They bring people to office who do not represent the interests of those who are electing them. They are manipulating the political process in sophisticated ways. There are examples upon examples of people in every level of office who have been lost their races as a result of a flood of outside money in their elections. By a huge margin, those with the most money win. The money buys the ability to test and put out a message that will put a candidate into office and ensure that the true actions of that politician are not seen or understood by the masses. Truth is drowned out. 5 and 6. Reasonable regulations on spending could also include on individuals spending their own fortunes on elections.